A feud between Apple Inc. and a lawyer appointed by a federal court judge to monitor the company's e-book pricing reform became even more acrimonious Monday.Considering Apple's heritage of psychopathic arrogance, (OK, Steve Jobs' heritage of psychopathic arrogance) it is unsurprising that they would feel put upon for having to actually change their behavior for their behavior.
Michael Bromwich, the lawyer picked as Apple's monitor, said in court documents filed Monday that Apple's characterization of his team's activities as a "roving investigation" in fact "bear no relation whatsoever to the activities we have attempted to conduct."
In an 11-page document accompanied by hundreds of pages of emails, Mr. Bromwich described repeated alleged efforts by Apple to block interviews between him and senior executives, as well as the company's failure to turn over relevant documents.
………
In December, Apple asked Manhattan U.S. District Judge Denise Cote to halt Mr. Bromwich's oversight of the company pending the company's appeal of Judge Cote's antitrust judgment against the company. Judge Cote ruled in July that Apple colluded with five major U.S. publishers to drive up the prices of e-books, a verdict Apple has said it planned to appeal.
The Justice Department, which reviewed Mr. Bromwich's proposal for the monitoring position, said in court papers filed in December that halting Mr. Bromwich's work would go against the "public's interested in preventing further antitrust violations by Apple."
On Monday, Mr. Bromwich said he routinely met with top management at the three organizations he previously monitored and had "never before had a request for a meeting or interview in a monitoring assignment rejected or even deferred."
"This is far less access than I have ever received during a comparable period of time in the three other monitorships I have conducted," Mr. Bromwich said.
Hoocoodanode?
0 comments :
Post a Comment